tv Happening Now FOX News November 13, 2009 11:00am-12:59pm EST
fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- jon: this is a fox news alert. at this moment we are waiting for that news conference to begin at the justice department. attorney general eric holder expected to announce a major decision regarding 10 high- profile guantanamo detainees. this morning we know five of them will be tried in a civilian court in new york city. among them, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind, khalid sheikh mohammed. you can imagine the decision to bring them to the u.s. has been controversial, and the response has been immediate. first of all, there have been problems with evidence, right, catherine herridge? >> yes, i have been falling 9/11 for many years. i know that there will be issues in bringing this case to the
federal court because some of the evidence will not be admissible in a federal court room. for example, khalid sheikh mohammed was water imported -- waterboarded by the cia, and the other four were also subject to interrogation practices. presumably, evidence gathered from the enhanced interrogation program, time spent at the secret prisons, would not be admissible in the courtroom. that is one of the fundamental questions the attorney general will have to answer. and why is it that some of the detainees will go to federal court and others will go to a military commission? are they creating two tiers of justice? an official told me that they will have to explain whether or not they are looking for a
certain result in those courts. jon: i know that you have been talking to one of the attorneys for one of the detainees. >> i shortly got off the telephone, and from my multiple visits to guantanamo, many have tried to plead guilty in military commissions. i asked him what his take was about this decision and he calls it a game changer, saying -- in other words, he believes that they will try to use the federal system as a platform to espouse some of their views. jon: that question of what is allowable will be fascinating. presumably, what khalid sheikh mohammed said, the judge takes a look at that and says we do not allow that in this country, so
you cannot use it. >> it has been 10 months since the president announced he would close guantanamo bay and the administration ordered a review of the cases at guantanamo bay, and it is probably one of the most complex legal situations that any of us will ever encounter, not just because the magnitude of the attack, but the conditions under which evidence was gathered. much of the evidence was gathered on the battlefield. this is not evidence that would necessarily be the standard of acceptability in a court room. none of the reasons it has taken such a long time to reach a decision -- these are just some of the reasons and has taken such a long time to reach a decision. i do not know how long this will
take, but i can give you some advice from my experience -- jon: eric holder is stepping to the podium now. >> good morning. just over eight years ago on a morning that our nation will never forget, 19 hijackers working with a network of al qaeda conspirators around the world watched the deadliest terror attacks our country has ever seen. nearly 3000 people lost their lives in those attacks, and in the years since, our nation has no higher priority than bringing those who planned attacks to try -- to justice. a terror attack on the u.s. as cool killed 17 sailors. today we announced the step forward in bringing forward those to responsible for the 9/11 attacks and the attacks on the uss cole to justice.
five have been charged with participation in the 9/11 plot. they are khalid sheikh mohammed, walid bin atash, ramzi bin a lshib, and mustafa al-hawsawi. a case in military commissions against the alleged mastermind of allegedcole bombing was withdrawn in february. for the past several months, prosecutors of the department of justice have been working diligently with prosecutors from the pentagon office of military commissions to review the case of each detainee at guantanamo who has been referred for prosecution.
over the past few weeks, i have personally reviewed these cases, and in consultation with the secretary of defense, have made determinations about the prosecution's of the 10 detainees now held at guantanamo, including those charged in the 9/11 plot and the alleged mastermind of the cole bombing. today i'm announcing the justice department will pursue justice in federal court of the five individuals accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. further, i have decided to refer back to the department of defense by a defendant to face military commission trials, including the detainee who was previously charged in the uss cole bombing. in 9/11 cases have been jointly assigned to prosecutors from the southern district of new york and the eastern district of virginia, and will be brought in
manhattan in the southern district of new york. after eight years of delay, there was allegedly responsible for the attacks of september 11 will finally face justice. they will be brought to new york to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse blocks away from where the twin towers once stood. i am confident in the ability of our courts to provide the defendants a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. the alleged conspirators will stand trial in our justice system and an impartial jury will follow procedures. i also want to assure the american people that we will prosecute these cases vigorously, and we will pursue the maximum punishment available. these were extraordinary crimes, and so we will seek maximum penalties. federal rules allow us to seek
the death penalty for capital offenses, and while we will review the evidence and circumstances following established protocols, i fully expect to direct prosecutors to seek the death penalty against each of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. in a speech at the national archives in may, the president called for the reform of military commissions to ensure they are lawful, fair, and effective prosecution forms. congress recently adopted a -- the department of defense is absolutely committed to ensuring military commission trials will be consistent with our highest standard as a nation and our civilian prosecutors will continue to work closely with military prosecutors to support them in that effort. in each case, my decision as to
whether to proceed in federal court or military commissions was based on a protocol that the department of justice and defense developed, and that was announced publicly in july. because many cases could be prosecuted in either federal courts or military commissions, that protocol sets forth a number of factors, including the nature of the offense, location in which the offense occurred, the identity of the victims, and the manner in which the case was investigated. all these things must be considered. in consultation with the secretary of defense, i have looked at the relevant factors and have made a case by case decision for each detainee. it is important that we be able to use every forum possible to hold terrorists accountable for their actions, just as a sustained campaign against terrorism requires intelligence, law enforcement, and military
operations, so must our legal desperate -- efforts to bring justice to federal court to enter for military commissions. among to think members of congress including senators lindsey gramm, carl levin, and john mccain, who worked hard to strengthen our national security by passing legislation to reform the military commission system. we will continue to draw on the pentagon support as we bring cases against the alleged 9/11 conspirators in court. the justice department has a long and successful history of prosecuting terrorists for their crimes against our nation, particularly in new york. although these cases can often be complex and challenging, federal prosecutors had successfully met these issues and had sentenced terrorist to lengthy sentences. and although these cases should
never be minimize, our marshall, prison officials, and others have extensive experience and training dealing with dangerous defendants, and am confident they can meet the security challenges posed by this case. these detainees will not be transferred to the u.s. for prosecution until all legal requirements are satisfied, including those recent legislation requirements requiring a 40-day notice. i have already spoken this morning to gov. patterson and mayor bloomberg, and am committed to working closely with them to making sure all security concerns are properly addressed. i have every confidence we can safely hold these trials in new york as we have so many previous terror trials. for the many americans who lost friends and relatives in the attacks of september 11, 2001, and on the uss cole, nothing can
bring back those loved ones, but they deserve to see -- the opportunity to see those alleged suspects be served just as. today's announcement marks a significant step forward in our effort to close guantanamo and bring to justice those individuals who have conspired to attack termination and our interests abroad. for over 200 years, our nation has resigned -- a line on a faithful adherents of all law to bring criminals to justice and to provide accountability to victims. i am confident that they will enter the call of fairness and with justice. >> what do you say to those who say, $400 million was spent in cuba, was secured, so why couldn't the terrorists be prosecuted there?
>> we looked at the protocol with the department of defense, and on an individualized basis, made the determination that we can be most to test well in bringing the cases that involve the 9/11 detainees in federal court in new york. >> how much of a factor was this for you that with the 9/11 cases, you are returning them to the scene of the crime? >> that is something that took we have been. -- typically happens. there are a number of other factors that went into making the determination, including the nature of the people who were the victims, largely civilians in new york. in addition to that, this is something that happened in this country, as opposed to overseas, which is different to what we may do with those who could be tried in military commissions.
that is a fundamental tenet of jurisprudence. >> are you confident they will be able to stand trial, that they will be found mentally competent, that after harsh interrogation techniques, they will still be able to go to trial? >> i would not have brought this to trial unless i thought that in the outcome we would ultimately be successful. i will say that i have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in the prosecution of these cases in federal court. >> can you say where you expect these military commissions to be held, and can you give us some approximation of how many guantanamo cases you expect to bring to a civilian trial? >> we have not made any determination on where the military commissions will actually take place.
we are in the process of reviewing other cases to decide if they will be brought in military court or civilian courts. i suspect we will be making some announcements in the near future. >> some critics have already said that this is a bad decision. peter king says that this makes new york more of a target. how do you respond? >> new york has a long history of trying these types of cases. new york has a hard and system. we have talked to the marshal service there. an analysis was done about the capabilities that exist in new york and am confident that we can safely hold people there and protect the people who's around the courthouse area -- around the courthouse area -- cruise
around the courthouse area. >> at least 1 9/11 family member has spoken up and said that this will give the defendant a platform to ridicule the u.s. justice system. are you concerned about giving them that opportunity? the nothing bad will happen? >> i am confident that whatever judge is assigned to the case will maintain dignity and the only thing that gets on the record is that which is relevant, and that is whether or not the focus should be on guilt or innocence. i am confident with regard to that particular judge, whomever they will be -- he or she will be. >> you cannot assure the outcome, that these people will be convicted. what if they are not convicted? will there be detention for those who are not convicted?
>> i would not have authorize the prosecution of these cases if i was not confident that our outcome would be successful. >> as a follow on, a lot of 9/11 family members have said consistently, whether it is a military commission or civilian court, as my colleague pointed out, some judge could decide that somebody did something wrong in the prosecution and perhaps ksm could be wandering the streets. how do you assure the family member that that is not going to happen? that they will not be exonerated some health through a technicality and be set free? >> i looked at the great work that was done by lawyers from the department of defense, office of military commissions, department of justice. miami prosecutor myself. i looked at the evidence,
considered the problems that these cases present, and i am quite confident that we will be successful in the prosecution efforts. if i was concerned about the four on not leading to a positive result, or if i had a concern, we would perhaps be in a different place. i want to be as assuring as i can. based on all my experience and based on all of the recommendations and the great work and research that has been done, i am quite confident that the outcomes in these cases will be successful ones. >> if you say you are doing it to unfold rule alof law, and you are taking different forms based on the defendant and where you can receive a successful outcome, how is that fair? >> it is not a question of looking out of come but the
question of deciding where a case is more appropriately brought. if one looks at what has happened in federal court, we certainly have a great deal of experience bringing terror cases. when it comes to cases that might the war -- the rules of law, there is great history with military commissions. those are among the factors that we take into consideration. we are not looking for outcomes, trying to decide where we can get a better outcome. we look at a variety of factors that are contained in the protocol that is publicly available, and make a case by case determination. >> all five going to military commissions, is it because they were military targets and in 9/11 -- the 9/11 attacks were civilian targets? >> the uss cole attacks was against a u.s. warship, so i
think it is appropriate to try that in military settings. that is among the factors that we considered in making our determination whether or not they go to civilian federal court or military commissions. >> there has been talk abouamong family members who were affected in the attacks -- [inaudible] also wondering if you expect all five to go on trial together or whether or not there would have separate trials? >> we are charging them with the most serious offenses that are appropriate, and as i indicated, are seeking the most serious punishment. as i said, i expect to ask for the death penalty when it comes to the prosecution of those five individuals. that is, i think, an indication of how serious i view these
cases, how negatively, to control their actions were, and how ultimately, they must face the ultimate justice. >>, delay, the canadian supreme court is hearing the transfer of one suspect of a man who could be transferred to the u.s.. will cotter be transferred here for trial? if he is, would you consider that request? do the commission charles here trump that? >> at this point, that case is designated for a commission proceeding. we will see how it should be ultimately treated. >> inevitably, defense lawyers will seek full disclosure about
the circumstances of how these detainees were treated well in u.s. custody and get as much of that before the jury. what is the department's position going to be on whether the defense will be entitled to know the whole story about how the detainees were treated well in u.s. custody? >> among the questions that have to be asked in that regard is relevance. how relevant were those statements? will those statements be used? i do not know what the defense will try to do. it is hard to speculate, so it is hard to know what our response will be, but i am confident, based on the evidence, even some of which that has not been publicly discussed, that we will be successful in attempting to convict those men. >> do you not believe the defense will be entitled to know how they were treated?
>> a judge will ultimately make that decision. >> [inaudible] >> yes, it was a surprise. greg craig has been a friend, a good lawyer. he has contributed, in a significant way, to the success of this administration, and to the success of the effort to close guantanamo. greg is a friend of mine. those who have tried to place on him, i think, and on the proportion of the blame as to why things have not proceeded as we wanted with regard to guantanamo -- that is simply unfair. he is a great lawyer, has been a great white house counsel. he was an early supporter of the president and i know he leaves
that banks of the president answered me my gratitude. >> can you talk how far off the closing of guantanamo is with this announcement? >> as i said, it will be difficult to close the facility by january 20. one of the thing that is most problematic in that rhetoric is trying to relocate the people who will be approved for transfer, finding places where they can be safely placed, both for the nation that will host them, as well as for american citizens. i am not sure that we will be able to complete that process by january 22 but we are constantly in the process of doing that. >> the detainee that will be brought to u.s. soil, have you
heard where they will be distributed? >> my sense is they will be housed as all defendants are, near places where the trial will occur. >> [inaudible] >> that is hard to say. we will seek to bring these indictments as quickly as we can, but obviously, we have to follow the loss passed by congress. -- laws passed by congress. i would guess that we would have been indictments relatively soon. >> you did not say specifically that the most serious charges -- suspects will be charged with the 9/11 attacks. will they be charged with that? >> there will be charged for what we believe they did and that is to mastermind and carry out the attacks. >> how close a call was it to
send them to civilian court, given the gravity of the issue --[inaudible] >> i have only been attorney general for about nine months, and it was the toughest decision i have made as attorney general. trying to balance the need that we maximize our chances for success and hold accountable the people who committed these heinous offenses, while at the same time adhering to the rule of law. balancing those factors, taking into account of the desires of the victims, trying to protect classified information. it has been a difficult situation but i am comfortable with the decision we have made with regard to the placement of people in civilian courts and
military commissions. >> you say you are comfortable with the legal reasons, but how concerned are you about how this will play up politically? >> my job as attorney general is to look tothe law and do what i think is in the best interest of the country and our system of justice. to the extent that there are political consequences -- i will just have to take my lumps to the extent that they are said to my way. but i think if you take a neutral, the attached stance that the decisions i made today, you will understand. we tried to do something rare in washington, leave the politics out of it, to do something that was best for the country.
having said that, i am sure we will hear a lot of criticism. >> [inaudible] time much of the trout do we expect to be open to the public? >> with regard to the openness of the trials, we get a sense of that from other significant terror trial that have occurred where they were largely open. portion will likely be closed so that classified information, sources, and methods are not revealed, but i would to set -- suspect they would be open to the world. >> will you try them together, separately? do you expect a fair trial? >> we expect to buy them
together and we expect a complete process to come up with a jury to ensure that the defendants get a fair trial. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. jane: eric holder announcing his decision today. five guantanamo detainees, including khalid sheikh mohammed, will not be tried in military court, and has announced instead they will be tried in civilian court. catherine herridge has been working the story for years. potentially, how long would this trial take? >> based on my reporting and what my contacts have told me, and they anticipate it could take over a decade for it to go
to trial because of the length of the motions. they base that on the fact that moussaoui, in the big scheme of things, when you compare him to these five, was really a nobody. his case was tried in alexandria va -- alexandria, virginia -- it took five years in total. multiplied by five. it could be years before they actually stepped into a courthouse. i know, dealing with the 9/11 families, some of the hardest moments was at guantanamo bay, when you saw some of them come for the military commissions. these are some people who are in
their 70's who had lost all children. they really believed they would die before they saw justice in this case. jane: that is heartbreaking. one of the questions and this is how you find an impartial jury when you are in manhattan when you are looking for jurors. >> he did answer that question, saying that the process would provide an impartial jury. however, one of the first challenges could be a change of venue for obvious reasons. whether or not that is successful is another case. in effect, that is a fly in the ointment. what i found striking about the news conference, when they had announced one venue would be available for the 9/11 conspirators, they would also
announce what the charges would be. it did seem like the card was before the horse but the attorney general indicated that in edmonton would be coming. the devil will be in the details. what will the charges be and how specificall will they be tied to the 9/11 attacks? jane: who will be their attorneys? >> some had civilian counsel, many of them had a court- appointed attorney. many of them drop their lawyer, in short, to play around with the system. in one case, one of the conspirators and asked his attorney to stay with him because he had built up a rapport with him. jane: i know you will let us
know if you find out anything else. >> i want to make one other point. i wanted to mention one of the investigative reporters at that news conference who raised a good question that the attorney general somewhat reflected, this question of evidence, and how much classified material, specifically how much time these men spend at the cia's secret prisons. this is in important point because one of the concerns i had heard was that this will in effect become a trial within a trial. on one track you will have a trial about the prosecution of the war on terror by the bush administration and handling of the detainees. the second track would be presumably in 9/11 crime. to that gives you a sense of how complex this will ultimately be
when this ends up in new york. jane: thank you. the jon: and joining us now to talk about all the how's and why's -- with me now is a former prosecutor. i was on a federal grand jury for three years. how do you pick a jury for a trial of that land? >> i do not agree with that. i would say four, five years. nobody is saying that the trial is going to be that long. i'm talking about when the trial will occur the jury will be selected by before the trial starts. jon: but it will not be a few months? >> the trial itself, i think it will only take about six months. jon: ok, what is your view of
the system? >> first of all, the attorney general tried to make it in dry legal -- and a dry, legal issue, but it is political. it is an implied criticism of the bush administration in their handling of the guantanamo situation. legally, they will be charged with the worst murder in the history of the u.s., is going to be indicted in federal court, and it is like any other federal case. emotionally, my goodness, to have these five sitting in the shadows, down the street from where this happened, i do not blame people for being disgusted with that. the other issues are, is this going to turn into some type of service for them to spew all kinds of rhetoric? jon: it was for to carry as
moussaoui. >> will there be a suppression motion based on the back that they could have been tortured at guantanamo, which could be in reiteration of the hot-button issue. can you imagine that judge suppressing the evidence? and of course the next step is discovering. catherine herridge talked about this. the government will be required to turn over and make available all types of evidence, and that may raise national security concerns. while i respect the attorney general's attempt to make this a dry, legal discussion, it is far from over. jon: federal judges have tenure for life. are there and judges out there who would say, the evidence was
gathered improperly, you get your get-out-of-jail card. >> that is a good point. if you look at the bernie madoff case -- not that there is any analogy -- but no judge wanted him to remain on bail despite their independence because of the unbelievable many -- media criticism. so to complete the analogy, any judge is going to toss out this evidence will be crucified beyond belief, which is not right, by the way. it should be based on the merits, but again, you just cannot say that this is a dry, legal case. jon: this will be the first of many interviews to come on this one. we want to know what you think. should the gitmo detainee to be tried in new york city?
go to our website, foxnews.com. send us an e-mail. you can also comment on our blog. jane: we do need to get to this. the u.s. is now taking action against a charitable foundation that we told you about months ago. the fed's are hoping to seize properties of a group that has links to the iranian government. prosecutors say the foundation is just a front that launders money to pay for iran's wrote the nuclear program. eric shawn is with us from queens, new york. explain to me with the allegations are. >> has iran infiltrated the u.s. for decades through the alavi foundation?
authorities are now taking steps to seize their assets. $500 million, including this mosque. alavi ; as hundreds of millions -- has hundreds of millions in assets but the government says that they are controlled by the iranian government, that the supreme leader of the iran had picked its board of directors. the concern is they are funneling millions of dollars to iran through the iranian bank and potentially could have helped the nuclear program. jane: any arrests? >> there have been one, the former president of the alavi foundation. he was indicted last spring for alleged obstruction of justice. fbi agents saw him tearing up
documents involved with the building and throwing it away in the garbage at his home. they also say that he had been to this mosque in queens meeting with the iranian ambassador, talking about business dealing with his foundation. we asked the officials here at the school but say that he was only here for prayer. you do not take orders from iran? >> none, whatsoever. the iranian ambassador has had children here. >> the foundation says they are disappointed at what happened and says they are not connected, 0, or have any control from the iranian government. jane: thank you. jon: let's turn our attention to the deficit as our nation goes
deeper into debt. the obama administration continues to pledge it will balance the budget. the country has been in the red for several years after the budget surpluses at the turn of the century. now the obama administration is considering using the federal bailout money to reduce the debt. joining me now is an editor from "wall street journal." can you explain how this works? >> not really. in will take a long time because they have done themselves a deep hjole. spending increases for 2010 that congress is considering is 12%. so now they are going to propose -- this is like after a blowout thanksgiving, i am going
to start to eat less now. jon: how does the government pay off its debt with government money? $210 billion in t.a.r.p. money? >> we paying t.a.r.p. is fine. that is ok and necessary. it would be better if they shut down t.a.r.p. altogether. some of the banks are going to pay back t.a.r.p., and that is ok, but at the same time, they are still spending like crazy on other parts of the budget. the only way we can really get the deficit down is to control spending across the board. jon: is this a case where the government is printing money to pay off its own debt? >> the federal reserve is printing money right and left, that is for sure, and we are going to have trillions in debt. the estimate is $9 trillion of new debt in the next decade.
that will be increasing all the time. we have to do something about the spending, and you are seeing in these announcements, the administration is feeling political pressure to do something, which is winding are making these gestures. jon: well, you have two choices, reduce spending or increase taxes. >> or just increase debt, as long as some had -- as long as someone is willing to bite it. jon: in of the interesting. thank you. that program airs tomorrow at 2:00 eastern time. jane: we just heard from the attorney general that the self- proclaimed mastermind of 9/11 khalid sheikh mohammed, and four others will be tried in civilian
jon: the holiday shopping season is almost here with visions of prague and dancing through their heads, retailers are putting their hopes on gift cards. they were last -- once seen as a last-minute gift, but now retailers are hoping that you will see it as the perfect gift. jenna lee is with us. >> give card sales last year was not so great because in-store sales were tremendous. things are different this year. you will not be as much inventory out there and the sales will not be as good. most of us apparently want a
gift card, according to the national association of retailers. however, those gift cards are not counted until we spend the money. sometimes they are impersonal and they also have the expiration dates, so be careful. also, some of the bank of cards, like a bomb expert -- american express, are no longer part of it. jon: thank you. jane: we want to get to some new information from colorado. the parents of the falcon heene are in court this morning. richard heene pleaded guilty to a felony charge. his wife also pleaded guilty to misdemeanor. alicia acuna is outside of the
court room. >> a defense attorney for the family said he learned one thing from the case. if you mess with america's of motions, america will hurt you. essentially, he says richard should not have had to plead guilty to felony, but he had to to save his wife from deportation to japan. this was done as a package deal with the prosecution that also wanted to push mayuni heene on trial for a felony as well. in essence, a package deal. both plead guilty to participating in not hoax. they will learn next week about sentencing. both face the possibility of jail time, 60 days for her, 90 days for him. we will learn more in december.
jane: thank you. jon: they are some of the best athletes in the world but they are not even allowed to participate in the winter olympic games. why women cannot jump are you receiving a payout from a legal settlement or annuity over 10 or even 20 years? call imperial structured settlements. the experts at imperial can convert your long-term payout into a lump sum of cash today.
lindsey, good to see you. women are allowed to box and russell, but not ski jump? >> that is right, every sport, summer and winter, except the jumping. jane: explain to me what you are going to court for, what you are asking? we are >> asking the vancouver organizing committee that it is against their loss because government money is being spent to build a facility not meant for women. so we want the vancouver committee to tell the olympic committee that they cannot hold the event as planned because it goes against canadian law. jane: i am going to read a statement from the ioc --
do they have a point? it is your competition not good enough? >> no, we have more athletes in more countries than luge, snowboarding, and many other winter sports. jane: and this is not new. men have been two for a while. >> absolutely. it has been around for a long time and women have been competing in the sport the whole time. jane: this is incredible. i did not know there was no women's ski jumping. do you expect a decision today? >> i am hopeful because it is nerve wracking, wait to hear a decision.
gecko: all right... gecko: good driver discounts. now that's the stuff...? boss: how 'bout this? gecko: ...they're the bee's knees? boss: or this? gecko: sir, how 'bout just "fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance." boss: ha, yeah, good luck with that catching on! anncr: geico. fifteen minutes could save you fifteen percent or more on car insurance.
[captioning made possible by fox news channel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- jon: good morning as we continue. breaking news on the disappearance of a five-year old girl in north carolina. she vanished from her home on tuesday. surveillance pictures show her with a man at a hotel one hour later. one man has been arrested. jane: excerpts of sarah palin's forthcoming book have been leaked. she talks about john mccain and what it was like to learn that
her teenage daughter was pregnant. jon: and how much will it cost you for your turkey dinner? jenna has the answer. jane: khalid sheikh mohammed and his alleged four co-conspirators will go on trial in civilian courts in the city where they are accused of unleashing their destruction. they will stand trial not far from where thousands died in the attacks. in the last hour, eric holder announced this controversial decision at a news conference. >> today we announced a step toward in bringing forward those we believe were responsible in the 9/11 attacks and the attacks on the uss cole to justice. jane: he says he is confident that they can be held in new york city without jeopardize the country's security. jamie kolby what has been --
jamie kolby, what has been the reaction so far? >> we have had terror cases before but this one is tracking a nerve. the court house where they would be held is so close, and they also feel that because this is a civilian court, they would be able to make public statements much more than in a military trial, and in the end, some are afraid that this will turn into a trial with no evidence, if what they are using in the case was information obtained during interrogation -- a little interrogations. these trials could take a long time. we are hearing from the victims and first responders. this is one of the firefighters who responded when the first plane hit. >> they are barbarians and they want to kill us. they want to kill everyone who
is not a muslim, and we are going to drag new york families through the mud again, people trying to live their lives again, trying to move on. >> there are many people who are not opposed to this, and we will hear about that later on, but there were efforts so that this would not happen. peter king had sent this letter to ever colder asking that he be given notification and also that the move the some place other than so close to the world trade center site. now we know that they will be coming here, but at least congress has 45 days to debate this. also with the defense is coming
into play, they may not get the chance that the attorney general believes will come. jon: let's get more reaction to the attorney general's announcement. and joining me now is the former head of the fbi offices in new york. he has a personal connection, obviously, to what happened that day. your thoughts about bringing those guys to the country for trial? >> i think it is a terrible decision. a very political decision. these guys were caught on the battlefield during a war. the notion that they are going to come into the civilian criminal courts where there are procedures of due process, a chain of custody, all those
things take a high priority -- i just think it is crazy. more importantly, i have no doubt, in the southern district of new york -- i know those people very well. i know that there will be a result we can be proud of, but this is just an asinine, a political decision that is so unnecessary. to bring the hearts and and every day morning of thousands of people directly involved in this, over the hot coals again, is crazy. jon: you were involved in the blind sheikh trial. the attorney general brought that up as an example of a case that has been successful in new york. >> absolutely, but it took place
here in the u.s., where the evidence was collected by the fbi, using the procedures at hand. we had no other choice. this was not on the battlefield in some country where military people took others into custody. this is setting a new president in the united states and it is going to hogtie our ability to do battle around the world. why they could not go before military tribunals is the big question. jon: the obama administration has dropped the use of the phrase "war on terror" and is this just another symbol of that mind-set? >> i do not know, but this is a political decision. the aclu is for this and all of the rest of the far left people.
perhaps they want to expose something that was done terribly and improperly -- the so-called interrogation techniques that they did not approve of, etc. but it will be extremely difficult to convict them. it will happen, but the commotion dragging everyone through this again, and the president using the civilian courts try crimes that took place in the u.s. -- it is a sad day in the country today. jon: thank you. jane: we do want to know what you think. should the detainee's be tried in new york city? foxnews.com. here is an example of one response --
we invite your thoughts. jon: the army psychiatrist charged with the murders at fort hood may be paralyzed from the waist down. apparently the doctors have told him that he has no feeling in his legs. 12 soldiers, one civilian was killed. word of hasan's condition is coming as disturbing details of his past are coming to light. steve centanni, a business card of his was found? >> just one more piece of evidence. that attorney who you mentioned, who will be representing ha san, is angry that journalists were led into the apartment.
in there, they saw a couple of different items, including a business card. it gave his name, labeled him as a psychiatrist as well as "soa" which means servant of allah, as well as an acronym that would translate into "glory for god." jon: what is the latest in the investigation? >> it continues on many different fronts. of course the most latest -- the latest is 13 counts of premeditated murder. he has officially been charged with those counts of premeditated murder. the next step is for an article 32 where they get all the
evidence together and determine if there is enough evidence to go forward with a court proceeding. in this case there probably will be and then they will go forward with a court martial. this thing could be dragged out for some time. of course, in the meantime, he is in the hospital with an undetermined condition. we have only heard from his attorneys so far. jane: president obama says he does not one american military involvement in afghanistan seen as an open-ended commitment. he is in danger right now for a week-long visit. he is defending what some are calling a wrong decision. molly henneberg is at the white house. what do we know in terms of the timeline? >> the president says he is not waiting for additional information, just that his ultimate decision protect members of the military and
create more stability in afghanistan. to those critics, including dick cheney, who says the president is dithering on afghanistan, here is how the president responded. >> i recognize there have been critics of the process. they tend not to be folks who, i think, are directly involved with what is happening in afghanistan. those who are, recognize the gravity of the situation, and the importance that we get this right. >> the president has asked his security team to come up with additional options, including time lines for troops as well as the afghan government taking over its own security. jane: in terms of witt -- when we may hear the decision, is it looking like december? >> certainly not on this trip when he is in asia.
a spokesperson says a decision is still a couple weeks away, but when the president makes his final decision, they say he will explain to the american people the thinking behind it. >> once a decision is made, the president understands the important aspect of explaining what went into making the decision, why the decision was made, how it will impact on our men and women serving in the military. >> gibbs says he is not sure if the decision will come before thanksgiving. jane: thank you. jon: sarah palin's new book " going rogue" does not go on sale until next week, but we have some information coming up. jane: there is a missing girl in
she is the greatest thing ever. woman: one little smile, one little laugh. - honey bunny. - ( coos ) we would do anything for her. my name is kim bryant and my husband and i made a will on legalzoom. man: it was really easy to do. - ( blows raspberries ) - ( laughing ) robert shapiro: we created legalzoom to help you take care of the ones you love. go to legalzoom.com today and complete your will in minutes. at legalzoom.com we put the law on your side.
>> police in north carolina are saying they are hoping to be getting closer to finding shania davis. police have just made a second arrest. they had arrested a 29-year-old who was seen on surveillance video which they just released, seen taking the child into a hotel room 40 miles away from the mobile home park where anyone last saw the child. they have left for the first suspect, but even though they
have this suspect, he confessed to taking the baby, but they still do not know where the baby is. authorities are saying now that they are holding out hope and have every belief that she will be found alive. jon: water, water everywhere. including on the moon. remember that experiment they had last month where the crashed the satellite into the moon and then analyzed the dust that was kicked up? we are finding that there is water in that lunar crater. that is a big deal because nasa hopes if there is water on the moon, first of all, you might be able to find a way to refine it to make it dribble water for astronauts, and then you would be able to have wider shuttles
because the water is a lot of the weight. there are even possibilities that you can break the water down into its component, hydrogen and oxygen, and from that, make rocket fuel. jane: sarah palin's new book officially goes on sale next week but we are already hearing some things from it. what she said about john mccain and the campaign trail. carl cannon is here with more. >> the first printing is 1.5 million and it is already on the top of the amazon's list. in the book, the former vice presidential nominee gives her side of numerous bitter fights with john mccain aide and
essentially argued that they mismanaged her image, candidacy, and the message. at one time, she said -- she describes her staffers as insensitive and suggest they blew the public disclosure of her team daughter's pregnancy, complains about how she had a makeover forced on her and her family, and that caused a controversy over the cost of the clothes and her own authenticity. it hits the shelves on tuesday. excerpts are now being leaked out. this is expected to be a huge smash. so far the mccain campaign is making some argument back in the fence, but most of them who are named, say they're just trying to move on.
jon: the end of the month, one of my favorite holidays. you may have to loosen your belt after thanksgiving dinner, but will the economy due to belt- tightening? james rosen is with us at a best buy store. >> coming up after the break, we are going to have some real numbers for you. perhaps you are looking to get a seasonal job. this is here as well.
jane: is the season to find part-time holiday work. with unemployment pricking double digits, the opportunity could not come at a better time, but competition will be tough. james rosen is with us from falls church, virginia. >> that was the beatles box at which i have not bought debt, which is an opportunity for someone to buy it for me. it is about $250, but well worth it. for those of us who are looking for work right now, the seasonal holiday season is upon us, but it is a mixed picture in terms of how many jobs will be created. two years ago there was about 750,000 seasonal jobs. last year it was around 520,000.
some of the stores that are hiring this season -- gamestop is looking to hire 15,000. kohl's is looking to hire 20,000. ups is looking for 50,000 people. they are also hiring here at best buy. how many people will you be hiring this season? >> about 45 people this season. at this store. there are 45,000 stores around the country. >> how many of them stay on full time after the holidays are over? >> our store, a lot of average team members stay on board, part-time or full-time. >> how can they ensure that they have the best opportunity to do that, to stay after christmas? >> and just do anything that any
employer would ask of you, be on time, in uniform. >> are you seeing more applicants this year than before? >> yes, we are seeing more. >> are you seeing overqualified people as well show up? >> we have all sorts of people showing up. it is just the competition in the market. >> thank you. i look forward to seeing that boxed set in my mailbox from you. jane: thank you. jon: it is almost time for americans to give thanks again. jane: it is easier said than done, depending on how many people you are feeding, especially in this economy. jenna is here to tell us that it might be less expensive than last year?
>> it is the first time in five years that it is expected to cost less. it will cost you around $42 to feed a family of 10. this is just to show you where we are compared to last year. the american farm bureau put together a mixed basket of your favorite thanksgiving items. they sent out 200 shoppers with a list and they could not use any coupons and the purchase items. this is what they came up with. a couple of items that you are saving on include the turkey, as well as a gallon of milk. it is costing about $1 less than last year, which is tough for dairy farmers. the one area where you are spending more money on, the
processed stuff, pre-made dough for your pumpkin pie. the pie crust. jane: you do not make it from scratch? >> my mother did. but the cremate, the processed stuff is going to cost more. they did shot during been skimming time, and if you are doing your shopping and, prices may be higher. jane: what are you doing for thanksgiving? >> i will actually be overseas on assignment. jon: i am coming to your house, did you know? jane: my mother will be happy. good to see you here, jenna, in the flesh.
we are continuing to watch this case. you heard eric holder announcing five of the 9/11 suspects, including khalid sheikh mohammed, will be tried in civilian court right here in new york city. hundreds have already responded on our blog. i want to read a couple of them. billy says -- isabel says this -- this will bring on the server suffering to the families of the victims. we invite you to weigh-in. medicare.
it doesn't cover everything. and what it doesn't cover can cost you some money. that's why you should consider... an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan... insured by united healthcare insurance company. it can help cover some of what medicare doesn't... so you could save up to thousands of dollars... in out-of-pocket expenses. call now for this free information kit... and medicare guide. if you're turning 65 or you're already on medicare, you should know about this card; it's the only one of its kind... that carries the aarp name -- see if it's right for you. you choose your doctor. you choose your hospital. there are no networks and no referrals needed.
help protect yourself from some of what medicare doesn't cover. save up to thousands of dollars... on potential out-of-pocket expenses... with an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan... insured by united healthcare insurance company. call now for your free information kit... and medicare guide and find out... how you could start saving.
jon: we are ecstatic. that is from one nasa member who crashed a satellite into the surface of the moon. it kicked up a dust cloud, they took a picture of it and analyzed the wavelength of light coming from men and discovered there is water on the moon. that could be helpful in future lunar explanations. among other things, the lcross was a bit of a dead in terms of what lay people were -- dud in
terms of what lay people could see, but now nasa is very excited. jane: the justice department has announced khalid sheikh mohammed will be tried in federal court in new york city, along with four other suspects. we will get reaction to the decision from peter hoekstra, a ranking republican on the intelligence committee. the remnant of ida sweeping along the northeast coast. some popular beaches are worried about a significant erosion. and brushing and flossing your teeth could help keep your brain sharp as you age? we will explain. jon: it could be one of the largest counterterrorism seizures in history. the fed's taking steps to seize a skyscraper and four mosques,
all owned by a nonprofit muslim group accused of funneling money to the iranian government. with me is a former fbi director. this is a pretty unusual move. >> yes, and well done. we need to remember, iran, for decades, has been the principal state sponsor of terror, much of it directed against u.s. interests. to hurt them this way, to have an effect on their ability to fund terror, which is an expensive proposition, is not only just and effective way to deal with their state sponsorship of global terror. jon: i want to applaud the move, but how effective can it be? it is one building and four mosques. when you are talking about a
nation the size of iran, is this just a pinprick? >> obviously, this is not the total solution, but we are talking about substantial assets, perhaps in hundreds of millions of dollars. right now, iran is struggling economically, and certainly it is more than a pin prick. not the total solution, but we should applaud this. jon: and how ironic that they call us the great satan among other things, but they have facilities here where they are making money from us. >> that is right. there is a huge amount of irony. this is an effective tool. they have violated the law, this is not arbitrary action.
so once again, the good work by law enforcement authorities, the u.s. attorney's, and the kind of thing we need to keep doing as part of the fight against terrorism. there is no single answer. it needs to be seen as a multifaceted effort. something like this is part of that. jon: this is a half billion dollar seizure, but on top of that, i wonder if it has the effect of kicking the hornets' nest. once you have this property, does it set off trails of computer messages and money transfers and so forth that may reveal other assets? >> for sure. jon: some of these holdings were
secret. the iranian government was not advertising that they owned all of this. >> for sure, and that is part of their basis for the nile of ownership. -- denial of ownership. you are right. the fallout from this will undoubtedly go in many directions. again, the important part is following up on that systematically and aggressively. jon: good to talk to you. jane: what is left of tropical storm ida is turning up the northeast coast. coastal communities have seen high winds and surf. these are live pictures we are looking at from virginia beach, virginia. the storm is being blamed for five deaths across three states.
three fishermen are presumed dead after their fishing boat sank. >> the good news is, the worst of the storm is over, but look at the rain totals we are getting. almost 1 foot in chesapeake, virginia, hampton, part of north carolina nearing 10 inches. we still have the potential for rain, but not be significant totals we have seen in the past 48 hours. take a look at these wind gusts. these are hurricane-force winds. this was a pretty massive nor'easter. again, we are still seeing the effects in terms of wind and tide cycles -- we will see swells coming in this evening,
but by saturday, the storm should be pulling off. there is the storm system just off the coast of new england. still seeing some activity in virginia beach, but the damage is over. wind gusts anywhere between 15 and 30 miles per hour. as the storm moves more north, we will see the winds extend further up into new england. we are not done yet but the storm is not over. jon: heading to a federal court steps away from where the twin towers once stood. the self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11 and four of his co- conspirators will stand trial in a civilian court in new york
jane: the man who planned the 9/11 attacks and four co- conspirators will be tried in a civilian court in new york city. here is attorney general eric holder announcing the decision. >> i am confident in our records ability to provide the defendant a fair trial, just as they have for over 200 years. the alleged conspirators will stand trial. jane: already we are hearing of rage over the decision from the victims' families and friends. let's get reaction from peter hoekstra. congressman, your thoughts?
>> what i have been looking for from the administration is a coherent strategy on how we are going to confront, contain, and defeat radical jihadist. every time they announce a new strategy, i come back to the same question, why? why do we want to close gitmo? why do we read miranda rights to people that we capture in afghanistan? what are we going to try these people in civilian court? they have already pled guilty in the military tribunal commission in guantanamo, so why are we going to take them to new york, provide them with an opportunity for a showcase trial to propagandize to america and others around the world, why are we giving them that platform? why can the president take a
guilty plea for an answer? jane: i want to read for you a statement from the aclu. they say the transfer of cases -- your reaction? >> we have had military tribunal commission before. they have worked. but i do not think moving them into civilian court -- there are all kinds of questions that we will see a rise as we go through the process. what if these guys are acquitted on a technicality? that can happen in civilian courts. i know the attorney-general said that he was convinced that they could convict them, but excuse me, that is a decision made by
the judge and jury. jane: he did also say that they were not necessarily looking out the ad comes here, but i assume that they will look at them before they made this decision. he also made the point that they had been doing this for more than 200 years. if there is any country that can try a case like this, we can, but this is different from what we have seen in the past. >> we provided those people with an opportunity to go through a legal process. they pled guilty in the military tribunal but this president suspended those activities and said he wanted to go a different way. i am just expressing my clear frustration. the president has not answered the question as to why the military tribunal commission did not work and why we need to reopen the wounds of 9/11 and
provide these people with this opportunity. from my perspective, this administration wants to lawyer up rocess and run this through a legal prism. i am not sure he realizes, even after last week, that america is still at war, whether we month to admit it or not. the president needs to see the world the way it is, not the way he wants it to be. jane: just to bring the other side of this, we got a statement from patrick leahy, chairman of the senate judiciary committee, and he says, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth trusts its judicial system. earlier we ask you if you thought these suspects should be tried in civilian court. we have gotten hundreds of responses.
jon: barbara from california says -- and jane: christie says -- jon: also, tom says -- as we said, lot of people are weighing in. if you want to leave your comment, go to foxnews.com. one of the most frightening legends of the amazon jungles. indigenous warrior to shrink their enemies' heads. it was only mr. about until now.
>> i had obtained footage that chose for the first time what appears to be an actual human head being shrunk. jon: so is it real? you just heard the author and explorer talking about it. he goes into the amazon looking for the indigenous people and his attorney is documented by the national geographic channel. you can see that this coming sunday.
pierce gibbons is with us now for a preview. i guess it would be cheating to ask if it was real. >> absolutely. they needed to know if it was real, or it would not have been there. this is a real human head being boiled. pretty terrifying stuff. jon: this came from a tribe in the amazon? >> that is right. and explore what they're in 1963 and was filming everything he could see. most of it is just normal tribal people going about their day, but there is this bit that makes us wonder what is going on. so-i agree geographic asked us if we could find who is doing this, and why. what makes drinking and had
their chosen way of justice? jon: so you found someone who actually remember this process and how it was applied? >> more than that. we took a battery powered dvd player to show the people this evidence, and then when tribesmen came to us and said, you see that man with the scar on his stomach, would you like me to take you where he lives? absolutely, we said. there we were in the middle of the amazon jungle in a little village, and there we have an interview with a man who said that that is his brother during the ceremony. i have never seen him since he died. it was the weirdest thing that has happened in my life. jon: what was the third -- purpose of shrinking their heads?
>> basically, it is capital punishment plus. it may not have even been a crime that you saw them commit. let's say that my son goes walking in the jungle and a tree falls and kills him, i would never think that that was an accident. i would think that someone did that to my son, and then i will try to see who that is through a vision, and if your face appears, i may decide that it is you who did it. then i may track you down and drop your head off and boil it. jon: he will be bringing us the search for the shrunken heads this sunday night. if you want to learn more, check out the national geographic channel during expedition week. 9:00 p.m. eastern time.
i tt b ng me g wofrat.as akel co mes d a wofranthi mnnerr viman lyeron m haogaberl lets. llmebee toe tmybeow isngtrd tiy ose. wiy r r n' toe vblmee. i'anrnd ind in gissi we. (anc thntme fba so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. i never really thought i would make money doing what i love.
jon: having trouble remembered -- jane: having trouble remembering things? maybe you should see your dentist. a new study finds out that good oral care could help you retain your thinking skills. researchers have already found a link between that oral health and heart disease, stroke, even alzheimer's -- a link between bad oral health and heart disease. they also found that in good dental care could help increase your brain function. that does it for us on a sunday. jon: have a great day. jon: have a great day.